Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit

Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit

Published January 18, 2012

FoxNews.com


President Obama announced Wednesday that he will deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, blaming Republicans for imposing a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" which he said did not give officials enough time.

GOP lawmakers immediately excoriated the president for the decision. House Speaker John Boehner said Obama is "selling out American jobs for politics," and said Republicans in Congress would continue to push for the pipeline.

The decision does not necessarily kill the project. The State Department said the denial "does not preclude any subsequent permit application" -- and within hours pipeline company TransCanada announced that it would reapply for a permit.

But the decision at least delays the project, one that unions and GOP lawmakers alike said would be a boon for job creation as well as energy security.

"Until this pipeline is constructed, the U.S. will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other foreign countries," TransCanada said in a statement Wednesday, saying it is "disappointed" by the administration's call. "Thousands of jobs continue to hang in the balance if this project does not go forward."

Obama administration officials and congressional Republicans were pointing the finger squarely at each other over the decision.

The White House claimed Republicans' decision to attach a pipeline provision to the short-term payroll tax cut extension last year scuttled the project -- that provision compelled the Obama administration to make a decision on the pipeline in two months.

Obama, in a written statement, said that deadline "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact."

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

The State Department made the initial recommendation to Obama on the grounds that there wasn't enough time to review. Obama agreed with that recommendation. According to the White House, Obama called Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "personally convey" that decision.

But Republicans accused Obama of playing politics and expressed concern that the decision would kill jobs -- 20,000 of them, according to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor.

"The president has showed through his actions that those actions do not match that rhetoric, and by deciding to block the development of the Keystone pipeline, he has essentially decided to block the creation of 20,000 new jobs," Cantor said Wednesday.

The decision reverberated on the 2012 campaign trail, as the Republican presidential candidates joined congressional Republicans in blasting the president.

Newt Gingrich called the decision "stunningly stupid," on the grounds that it kills construction jobs and endangers energy security. He also warned that the decision would compel Canada to sell its oil to China.

"What Obama will have done is kill jobs, weaken American energy security, and driven Canada into the hands of China out of sheer, utter stupidity," he said.

For three years, the State Department has been reviewing the initial proposal to run a pipeline from Canada down to Texas through a sensitive Nebraska aquifer -- authority it has because of the transnational path the route takes. The pipeline had been through several other federal, state and local approvals, but the department backed away from signing off on the plan last year after environmentalists and local lawmakers complained.

Industry workers and Republicans contend the project would create thousands of jobs, and Canada's prime minister has warned if the U.S. can't get on board, the North American nation will look to team with China.

"Unfortunately Prime Minister Harper of Canada just this week said because of the volatile indecisiveness on the part of this president, that they feel they are being held hostage and they will take their energy elsewhere specifically to Asia and China," Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, told Fox News Radio.

In December, Congress attached to the payroll tax cut a deadline of 60 days for the State Department to determine approval for an alternative route. The language says if Obama rejects the pipeline, Obama must then issue a report to Congress "that provides a justification for determination, including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade and environmental factors."

On Tuesday, Obama's own jobs council suggested that it agrees with the pipeline concept. While not specifically mentioning Keystone in a report out Tuesday about improving competitiveness, the council said that when it comes to energy projects in general, the government needs to "expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs."

"We think this all-in energy strategy can create significant economic growths and significant job creation," said Lewis Hay, NextEra Energy CEO and a member of the president's job council.

Obama has noted his environmental concerns when it comes to energy exploration, but insisted Tuesday that a balance could be found.

"I think the recommendations are sound. We see enormous potential in production of traditional fossil fuels," he said without mentioning Keystone.

As oil prices rose Wednesday on fresh signs the U.S. economy was improving, which could lead to stronger demand for gasoline and other energy products, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, argued that the pipeline doesn't make the U.S. any more energy secure just because it would get oil from a close neighbor and friend.

Instead of carrying common crude oil, the Keystone XL pipeline would carry thick, toxic bitumen for refining in the Gulf states, effectively transporting pollution from Canada to the United States," reads the NRDC report..

"It is not in the national interest to lock the United States into supporting an expensive and dirty form of oil for many years to come. Also, additional capacity for tar sands oil perpetuates America's addiction to oil, and undermines the clean energy alternatives that would bring genuine energy security," the NRDC report continues.

But Gerard said the president's refusal to approve the pipeline is a "clear abdication of leadership."

Boehner also accused the president of trying to put off a politically difficult decision until after the election.

"This is not good for our country," Boehner said. "The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney blamed Republicans for putting "in jeopardy" the entire process.

"In a purely partisan effort to score a political point, Republicans in Congress insisted on inserting an extraneous provision within a bill that had nothing to do with pipelines," Carney said, adding that the "arbitrary deadline" made an adequate review "virtually impossible."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-source-state-department-will-reject-keystone-pipeline-reroute/#ixzz1jr9bX2gZ

Big surprise. All political, and this is the most reviewed pipeline and they just said no to lots of jobs. EDIT - can't say that

Canadian leader tells Obama he's disappointed over pipeline rejection

Associated Press
January 18, 2012

TORONTO - Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he told Barack Obama he was profoundly disappointed after the U.S. president called to tell him the administration rejected a plan to build an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

But the Canadian government expressed optimism the Keystone XL pipeline will ultimately be approved. Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said it's clear the process is not yet over and said Canada is hopeful TransCanada's pipeline will be accepted on its merits.

Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Harper, said that Obama explained the decision was not on the merits of the pipeline, but rather on the "arbitrary nature" of the Feb. 21 deadline set by a Republicans as part of tax measure he signed.

Obama said the decision was without prejudice, meaning that TransCanada is free to reapply. The Calgary, Alberta-based company said in a statement that it would reapply and said it expects the presidential permit to be processed in an expedited manner that would allow the pipeline to go online in late 2014.

TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement that plans are already under way to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. He said the project is too important to the U.S. economy and the Canadian economy for it not to proceed.

MacDougall said Harper told Obama that he hoped the pipeline would eventually be approved.

The pipeline is critical to Canada, which must have infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta. The region has the world's third largest oil reserves with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves.

MacDougall said Harper also reiterated to Obama that Canada will look to sell its oil to Asia.

Earlier this week, Harper called Obama's decision in November to delay the Keystone XL delay a "wake up call" said said it was made for "very bad political reasons."

Harper has said Canada is far too dependent on the U.S., which Canada relies on for 97 percent of its energy exports.

With the product of oil sands and pipeline delivery to the U.S. under perennial clouds of environmental objection, Canada wants to ensure a market for the growing production.

The price of North American oil also sells for less than oil sold internationally because of a glut of Canadian oil in Cushing, Oklahoma, so shipping the oil to Asia would command a better price.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said Obama's decision strengthens Canada's resolve to pursue access to alternative markets.

Tom Huffaker, a vice president with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said they were disappointed with the decision because the pipeline has already been reviewed for several years. But he said they remain optimistic it will eventually be approved.

"There is clear room to reapply. That was explicit," Huffaker said.

Whenever Obama wants to take credit for something, he makes sure everyone knows about it. Whenever he wishes to avoid scrutiny, his underlings take the heat (preferably when he's out of town), or it's a decision by the 'White House' or 'the administration.'

What a guy. Screw up both Canadian and USA economic development over politics..... then blame it on the Republicans. The sooner he loses his job, the sooner there will be jobs for others.

TexasBlue wrote:Whenever Obama wants to take credit for something, he makes sure everyone knows about it. Whenever he wishes to avoid scrutiny, his underlings take the heat (preferably when he's out of town), or it's a decision by the 'White House' or 'the administration.'

What a guy. Screw up both Canadian and USA economic development over politics..... then blame it on the Republicans. The sooner he loses his job, the sooner there will be jobs for others.

Yeah, America needs to correct the mistake it made four years ago.

Mark85la wrote:Yeah, America needs to correct the mistake it made four years ago.

and go back to the ways of Dubya with his ineptitude? Or maybe go back to the ways of Bush 41 and be a wimp. Maybe go back to the ways of Reagan and sell weapons for hostages or go back to the bumbling fool known as Ford...or perhaps the lying, cheating Nixon.

Yeah, I don't really see any good in any of those choices either.

Spoken like a true liberal dem.

It baffles me how the GOP will always blame the other side for the problems.
Romney, Gingrich and the other GOP folks want to beat Obama. This is not just a case of getting into congress. Their philosophy is that Democrats screw up everything while in the home with the Oval Office.

In the past 43 years (since Jan. of '69) we have had 8 presidents and of that time period, 28 of 43 years have been GOP-based leaders.
How can any sensible person say that a party has ruined the country when they haven't even had that much of a chance to ruin it?
Logic would indicate that the people responsible for the screw-ups are the ones that have had more opportunity to do such things, eh?

Curiously enough, if I have been reading the press releases and articles (other sites) correctly, the US stands to become the world's largest energy EXPORTER in the near future. This is due to the mining/drilling of the oil/shale/sands out west in the Dakotas and that which comes down from Canada for refinement.

However, the US will not benefit directly because our oil/gas prices are dictated by a global marketing scheme that is controlled by international speculators. Any suggestion that the US tend to its own needs first and then sell off the excess secondarily, has been all but shot down by those globalists who see that there is more money to be made in selling overseas than domestically.

So... as odd as it may seem, energy prices will likely stay high as we continue to IMPORT less oil than we produce at home because what we pump is sent elsewhere.

I love the free market concept but there are times when I think that, like anything else, it can be, and often is abused at our expense.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:It baffles me how the GOP will always blame the other side for the problems.
Romney, Gingrich and the other GOP folks want to beat Obama. This is not just a case of getting into congress. Their philosophy is that Democrats screw up everything while in the home with the Oval Office.

And what have the Dems done? Blame the GOP for anything and everything. Same shit, different party.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:In the past 43 years (since Jan. of '69) we have had 8 presidents and of that time period, 28 of 43 years have been GOP-based leaders.
How can any sensible person say that a party has ruined the country when they haven't even had that much of a chance to ruin it?
Logic would indicate that the people responsible for the screw-ups are the ones that have had more opportunity to do such things, eh?

One also has to look at who held control of the two houses of congress in any presidential ear. That always says a lot because presidents don't write law. They sign law into effect. There's also times where their vetoes don't work and congress has overridden them.

It's always deeper than it looks.

Case in point; Bush2 had GOP congressional control for 6 of his 8 years. His majorities weren't all that large though. Many things were stumped by congressional Dems during those 6 years. Then he had Dem control of congress for his last 2 years.

Obama had HUGE majorities during his first 2 years. Those majorities in the House were unstoppable. In the House, majority votes rules (unlike the Senate). In the Senate, Obama had a super majority (after Franken was sworn in). This is the reason why the health care bill passed as easily as it did.

Now... any comment?

Very well stated Tex!

It is not so much about what party holds the White House as it is about what party holds the 2 Houses of Congress and by how much. A slim majority is absolutely useless when it is held by Republicans thanks to the RINO's and the Democrats affinity for the filibuster and the leftist bias of the MSM. When a slim majority is held by Democrats, it tends to work in their favor, again thanks to RINO's and a biased MSM.

At any rate, you've nailed it Tex.